HARINDER SINGH Vs. ICICI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 21.1.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum -I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No. 644 of 2008 was dismissed and he was directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as costs of litigation to the respondent/opposite party (hereinafter to be referred as OP).

(2.) IN nutshell the facts culminated to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus : The complainant used the credit card of OP Bank for some time but was astonished to receive the highly inflated bills for the same and as such took the matter with OP Bank whereupon a settlement arrived at between them and as per settlement (Annexure A -2), the complainant was to pay the following three monthly instalments either through cheque or cash Instalment Amount Payable on First Rs. 7000 27.05.2006 Second Rs. 7000 27.06.2006 Third Rs. 6500 27.7.2006 It was also agreed that the representative of OP Bank would visit the complainant to collect the said instalments and accordingly the representative of the Bank visited the complainant for collecting the instalments on 26.5.1006, 27.6.2006 and 23.8.2006 and he was paid Rs. 7000, Rs. 6750 and 6750 respectively. After paying the settled amount, the father of complainant requested the bank vide letter dated 21.9.2006 (Annexure C -6) to close the credit card of the complainant. However, after more than a year, complainant s mother received a phone call from one Sh. Balwant Rai and Sh. Roop Singh from Delhi Police informing her that a criminal case had been registered against the complainant and they would arrest him if the amount of the OP bank was not repaid. The father of the complainant also received a call from one Sh. A.K. Batra, Counsel for OP Bank, who told that complainant was in default of Rs. 19,000 and if a sum of Rs. 10,000 was immediately deposited, then he had the instructions to withdraw the case. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 10,000 was deposited with OP bank against receipt and the same was also faxed to Sh. Batra. The reafter, the complainant received another letter dated 22.12.2007 informing him that an amount of Rs. 9866.40 was due from him. It was alleged by the complainant that the demand raised by OP was totally illegal and earlier also an amount of Rs. 10,000 was obtained by them by using the method of coercion. Complainant requested the Bank to withdraw illegal demand and refund an amount of Rs. 10,000, which was obtained by them by resorting to coercion, but to no avail. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum.

(3.) ON the other hand, the case of OP before the District Forum was that initially Rs. 23750.06 was due towards the complainant but as per the settlement, he was to pay Rs. 20,500 in three instalments i.e. 1st and 2nd instalments of Rs. 7000 each on or before 27.5.2006 and 27.6.2006 respectively and 3rd instalment of Rs. 6,500 on or before 27.7.2006. However, time was the essence of the settlement and in case the complainant failed to pay any instalment on the due date, the settlement was to become null and void. However, complainant did not abide by the condition of the settlement and failed to pay the last instalment on or before 27.7.2006 as agreed and as such the settlement became null and void and an amount of Rs. 7,050.82 became due and payable as on 18.10.2006 and the overdue charges and late fee continued to become payable, which the complainant failed to clear in spite of reminding him through several calls. It was pleaded that the bank never authorized any Balwant Rai or Roop Singh from Delhi Police or any police authorities to make any calls to the complainant. There was outstanding amount of Rs. 19,781.06 but after due deliberations the bank was agreed to settle the matter at Rs. 10,000 and on the deposit of said amount, the matter was amicably settled between the parties and no further demand was raised from the complainant.